Hated it - Broadcast News (1987) Discussion

[–] skylark_King-1 18 years ago

It is my idea of great film making... and I think you missed SO MUCH of what this movie is about. Your loss...

reply

[–] BeatleBuck 18 years ago

SkyLark, you are 100 percent correct.

This is a great movie, great in large part because of the three main characters. The director allowed their personalities to come out and develop throughout the movie.

One of my favorites. I never tire of watching it.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trippek 18 years ago

I agree with ddoyle525, everything seemed dragged out in this movie, and i know it was about love, and i know it was more of a chick flick then a guy movie, But i felt the all the characters were self-absorbed as well, it seemed that the main girl like the less good looking guy more but was to pretentious and worried what others would think, so she went with the good looking guy. I know in the end she doesnt go with either guy, but it feels that all the characters were exactly the same people, just in different bodies, no one knew what they truly wanted but yet they wanted everything and like children wanted what the other person had, and they always had to yell to get it, and start random fights for no reason. My main point is this all the characters felt the same, acted like children when they didnt get there way, and like many crappy sitcoms today, fights are created over stupid things rather then looking at the obvious, and solving the problems, which in themselves were stupid and pointless.

Also the way the movie ended i know both guys still had a cruse on that girl, but her personality was so unattractive that even if she was a the most beautiful girl in the world, i would not even be able to stand next to her cause of her personality, example at the end of the movie, when she yells at the cab driver for no reason. Best way to put this was i felt like i was watching a lifetime movie of the week.

reply

[–] noveltylibrary 18 years ago

I don't think Jane cared what anyone else thought about who she chose to be in a relationship. That was the one thing I'm sure about her...nothing or no one stops her (see her as a little girl typing)... She just wasn't sexually attracted to Aaron, no biggie.

reply

[–] ddeboer 18 years ago

Jane and her less attractive male friend were like the nerds that never enjoyed popularity. Jane, despite her talent, really wanted that popularity and she may have been attracted to the William Hurt character because he represented what she lacked. Her and her male friend were a little sanctimonius. They were smart but bitter. Jane especially was hypocritical when it came to what she truly valued. At least in the area of love she opted for looks and popularity and I guess for work it was something different. I think it examines different kinds of intimacy and the nature of attraction in a way that is more complex and indicative of real life. But yes....all three were kind of jerks in their own way. I loved this movie nevertheless.

reply

[–] jg67 18 years ago

"...and i know it was more of a chick flick then a guy movie..."

How do you know this? lol

"You're too short for that gesture."
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5642503

reply

[–] dudleynomore 18 years ago

'Cause it's a romantic comedy? They're generally 'aimed' at women, at least in theory. A guy version of this movie would be NETWORK.

But I'm a guy, and I sympathise with the original poster. I love romantic comedies from HIGH FIDELITY to IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, and I actually read the script for this before seeing it and loved it, too. I understood everything the movie was trying to do. I understand what the ending was supposed to mean, and what the characters were supposed to represent.

But then I watched it and it became clear why it's rated 6.9. This movie just... doesn't... work. It didn't work, because Brooks couldn't decide whether Tom Hurt's character was the 'bad' guy and we were supposed to want Holly to end up with Albert Brooks, or whether we were supposed to want Tom and Holly Hunter to wind up together. Effectively the whole movie comes on as a romatic comedy set in the news biz, telling us how desirable Tom Hurt's character is, but then suddenly we're supposed to go "what an *beep*!" because of his lack of integrity, when up until then the integrity issue has been inconsequential to anything that happens. It suddenly turns round and tries to be NETWORK but with a happy ending.

reply

[–] Okami31 18 years ago

::spoilers::
I agree with you. I sort of wanted her to end up with Hurt's character who I liked the most and I hated the other guy for being so angry cuz she did not like him in that kind of way, and then his attempts at damaging her relationship with Hurt's character. It seemed like "if I can't have her no one can" attitude. At the end of the movie I found myself wondering what was the point of it all, as all three lead separate lives later on.

On a sidenote, she had a cute face but a horrible hair- and dressing- style.

reply

[–] Coryraisa 11 years ago

On a sidenote, she had a cute face but a horrible hair- and dressing- style.

I LOVED her hair in this film...and the clothes also...it suited her. She had lovely thick, straight dark hair and the shoulder length bob suited her no-nonsense character.

I liked the sideswept bangs she had for most of the film...I love almost all bangs. Sideswept and half-bangs are two great styles.

Jane's bangs reminded me of Princess Diana's often sideswept bangs.

reply

[–] ellery-6 14 years ago

That's precisely why the movie is great. It doesn't "tell" the audience who to root for Jane ending up with. Look at how we're debating this "who is better for Jane" all over this thread and everyone has a different opinion. We could go back and forth on this all day. That's what put this on a different level from other "rom-coms," if you could even classify this film as such. Personally, I don't like being spoon fed. I could watch this movie every week and get something different out of it. I certainly can't say the same about Network, which is about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

When life gives you lemons, make Limoncello.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"Whether Tom Hurt´s character was the ´bad´ guy and we were supposed to want Holly to end up with Albert Brooks, or whether we were supposed to want Tom and Holly Hunter to wind up together".

So this so-called problem the film has, is that the filmmakers didn´t tell you what to think or feel every step of the way? You for real, man?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] brackenhe 18 years ago

"I found all three characters nothing more than self-absorbed, self-important, pretentious, wankers. If this is your idea of great film making, knock yourself out."

I think that's the whole point of the movie--is that they are all self absorbed & pretentious except maybe Brooks' character and he was impressed with his own intellectuality. I think it's the best thing Holly Hunter's ever done. And I don't think it's a chick flick. It's an examination about how deceiving the network news & those that produce it can be. It seemed to me to be very thought provoking. Everyone uses everyone else to achieve their own goals. Not unlike how it is in the real corporate world. I think it's a fine film with great performances from all three main characters.

reply

[–] xueliang999 18 years ago

I hear this all too often about people hating the ending of the movie, only because the main characters don't 'get-together' in the happily ever after fashion. And in my honest opinion, I find it more appealing than the usual "struggle-to-get-girl" to "win-girl-for-a-day" to the "accidently-lose-girl-cause-of-self-ignorance-conflict" to a "larger-than-life-character-change-to-win-her-back" movie...

Seriously, if the only complaint ppl have about a certain romantic-comedy (like Chasing Amy) cause the ending isn't how they world normally day dream it. Then grow up man...

Sorry if this offends anyone but it's a lil' bit of an annoyance to me personally.

reply

[–] Rube8201 18 years ago

I found the movie boring and unfunny.

reply

[–] dancing_tears25 18 years ago

yeah? go watch 300 or ghost rider. i'm sure YOU will find them not boring and unfunny.

***
hell is other people.

reply

[–] Nullifyed 18 years ago

Well, I loved Broadcast News and that's all that matters at the end of the day. Holly Hunter + William Hurt + Albert Brooks = movie heaven.

reply

[–] porfiriodiaz 17 years ago

I liked Broadcast News AND 300!!

Broadcast News was good because it was a different, interesting character drama that often shifted my sympathies effectively between the leads.

300 was good because it was a visually arresting action movie that does a cool job of mythologizing an important moment in western military history.

Ghost Rider, didn't see it lol. I bet it's worth a watch one boring wednesday night if u catch it on TV though.

reply

[–] Okami31 17 years ago

actually I liked "Chasing Amy"...I prefer happy endings or at least definite endings, but I can take sad endings too...like "Braveheart", "The Notebook", "Big Fish"...etc...I just didn't like the characters in this movie...

reply

[–] jejozi 17 years ago

I can see the unattractive qualities that would turn people away from Aaron and Jane, but what's the problem with Tom? He's not in any way pretentious, he's too simple a person for that. He knows he's in over his head; "What do you do when your real life exceedes your dreams?" He doesn't even realize he's been promoted when all around him people are losing their job. The ending is great, no Hollywood BS.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

[–] Brel 17 years ago

One of the reasons this movie was so great is because the characters WEREN'T shallow archetypes. There wasn't goodies and baddies....they were 3-dimensional characters with strengths and weaknesses. A good example is when Aaron loses it when he hears that Jane is going back to Tom's and shouts at her and tells her to 'get the hell out'. Then he realises that he has been nasty, that his temper has got the beter of him and asks her back and apologises. When strong romantic feelings are involved but you have a kind of unrequited situation like this, there's often a battle between one's emotions and doing what is right. This film managed to deal with the subtleties of human relationships very well. I guess some people want broader characters where everyone's reasons for their actions are clearer and there's clear good guys and bad guys. But in reality humans aren't rational, they do bad things, despite their own better nature, they have emotions which they sometimes cannot control. This isn't a soap.

reply

[–] superman-159 17 years ago

one of our city's news anchor says this is his favorite movie and i can see SOMEWHAT why (being a anchor) but that other part i cant see why

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stephan-128 16 years ago

thank you k999m. i'm surprised so many people missed what this film was really about. its a very very serious topic that the film handles with charm, subtlety and wit. Tom is...really awful, but in subtle ways...he really is "the devil".
Aaron has integrity, but its a useless, impotent loser sort of integrity. Holly Hunter is torn - her character is so complicated and so facsinating -actually they all are. its a smart smart movie that works on so many levels, comedic, personal, professional, psychological, sexual, ethical. Especially ethical. It is indeed a warning, and that "line they keep moving around" has been tossed aside in really grisly horrible ways by the major corporations and the decision makers feeding all sorts of harmful agenda/shallow/infotainment/ outright lies by major media companies in ways unthinkable when this movie was made. They've left that line in the dust 1000 miles ago.

reply

[–] the_prodigal_son_returns 16 years ago

Saying Tom is the devil is a bit much.

reply

[–] indyhu 16 years ago

Well really, this was one of the most intelligent comedies of the last 20 years. If you didn't enjoy it and laugh at points, one or all of three things happened:
1. You didn't understand it, or
2. You went into the movie expecting the wrong thing
3. You went in to the movie while in a bad mood.

Watching this is like watching Aaron Sorkin's work the last 10-15 years. It is not for everyone.

This film means a lot to me. I watched it shortly before graduating college in 92 with a BA in Broadcast Journalism. When I started getting work, I saw the same type of people. And I saw the same compromises being made, flash over substance. What sells instead of the truth. I walked away from journalism altogether and have been working in the tech industry ever since.

Now with shows like TMZ on the air, I am so disgusted, I have a hard time watching or reading any news without having to decipher what the real story is.

reply

[–] Moon_and_New_York_City 15 years ago

I loved loved LOVED this movie, one of the best romantic comedies of all time.

The writing is crisp and sharp, the characters defined and well-developed, the acting top-notch, and the ending is pitch perfect.... what's not to love here?

"the best that you can do is fall in love"

reply

[–] MrAwersome 15 years ago

Aaron doesn't have integrity. He uses people just as much, if not moreso than Tom. When he told Jane about the single camera editing job on the date rape piece, was it out of concern for her or was it simple vindictiveness? Because Aaron, throughout the movie, was filled with a vindictive loathing for anyone who was "good-looking" or more successful than him (even going back to his high school graduation speech). He really can't even hide his loathing for the human race, in general. He's truly an awful human being. He never gave Tom a chance, he hated the guy the moment he saw him. Aaron is someone who never moved past the high school mentality, never grew up and is just a festering wound of adolescent angst. Tom, he may not have a great sense of ethics (obviously), but he knows that an anchorman is just a guy who sits behind a desk and reads the news that other people give him. There's clearly a desire in him to be better and make a difference (this is demonstrated throughout the movie). Why else would he have been so enraptured with Jane's speech at the beginning? Certainly not because he wanted to get into her pants, as she practically threw herself at him in her hotel room with that "How good are you at giving backrubs?" line (which he just shrugged off).

reply

[–] chuck-543 13 years ago

" ... he knows that an anchorman is just a guy who sits behind a desk and reads the news that other people give him."

THAT is the whole point of the film! It shows the transition from the time, not so long ago, when the news anchor was also the news director, to what we have now; ... someone easy on the eyes, delivering a few bits of real news sandwiched between feel-good stories to keep us watching, and buying what the sponsors are selling.

Back then, the network anchors wrote their own material, with assistance from reporters, fact checkers and other staff who were selected by the anchor.

Now, a news anchor is just another ingredient to make the product more attractive to viewers, and to sponsors. Once the news departments at the network and local level were forced to become profitable and self-sustaining, the ethics of real journalism took a back seat. And that is the real message in this film.

reply

[–] thomas196x2000 15 years ago

I didn't hate it, I rated it just a 5 though.

I agree, i disliked all the characters. I find it irritating that the Brooks and Hurt character can't get enough of "Jane", who to your point is about as self-absorbed and obnoxious as one can get. You want to kick Brooks to man-up and stop fawning over her and grow a set.

On the plus side, give the film makers credit, these characters are written as they are. I doubt you were SUPPOSED to like them. All three are jerks in their own ways, just like we could assume some people might be like in real life newsrooms.

I feel the film was well made, but I do a agree with you that the characters, while well played, were obnoxious and the film's tone was hard to enjoy. There was no one to root for, and the film dragged terribly.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

I had the same problem with this as I had with - amongst others - Terms of Endearment & The Big Chill... They all contain characters who are intelligent, which is a plus, but there's no warmth to them; it's all a massive game of one-upmanship concerning who can prove that they're more 'switched-on' than the rest... Intelligent, but self absorbed clueless schmucks, the lot of them... If these accurately represent the middle-classes in America, then I want nothing to do with them.

"I've been turned down more times than the beds at the Holiday Inn; I still try"

reply

[–] thomas196x2000 14 years ago

While I never saw The Big Chill, wow, the parallel you made to Terms of Endearment is right on.

The difference is, Broadcast News had some interesting content. Terms of Endearment was one of the worst "A-List" movies I have ever seen.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

Yep, and it was another James L. Brooks film, too...

Yeah; I would found being taken inside a newsroom a helluva lot more interesting if I'd've liked the people we got to spend time with, there... There were some enlightening details, if, for the most part, you could ignore the characters...

"I've been turned down more times than the beds at the Holiday Inn; I still try"

reply

[–] thomas196x2000 14 years ago

I felt exactly the same way, and I will give you a specific example, let me know if you thought the same.

There was the extended sequence where Jane first produces a segment, and you really got a look and feel for how the whole back room works, and the effort that goes on for a broadcast. That had me mesmerized. Then when it ended, and Jane went around getting all her attaboys, it was like, yech, the film is back.

There was another great scene where Tom is telling Aaron how to handle his posture and camera appearance. This was fascinating. I wish the scene had gone on longer. Then, boom, we are back to the Jane affair again and her dumb dress and everyone fawning over how great she is.

Interesting is your key word, even more than whether you like the characters. Mad Men on TV works because the characters are interesting AND the behind the scenes is compelling. And extra points because, on that show, I don't really care for ANY of the characters, but they are interesting and you hope they improve. In Broadcast News, you just wished they would go away, especially Jane.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

Absolutely agree with you.

Give me characters I hate, because at least then they're giving you back some kind of energy, even if it's a negative vibe... Here, the characters were dull because they were defined by their job, and how it made them see themselves, so I never wanted to spend any time with them. People are interesting when we get to see who they truly are - whether good or bad. This is not that type of film, because of the type of environment they're in, these folk are constantly posturing for other people instead of relaxing and being who they really are.

It's an interesting commentary on the type of behaviour it takes to succeed, I suppose... I just didn't see why I should care when it was all fake.

"I've been turned down more times than the beds at the Holiday Inn; I still try"

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

... and you just gave me enough ideas to turn my feelings into a comment - so thankyou!

"I've been turned down more times than the beds at the Holiday Inn; I still try"

reply

[–] chuck-543 13 years ago

Didn't anyone get the actual theme of this film? The romantic involvement was only a side story. The film was all about the radical, though subtle, changes in television news and how it's presented to us.

What was once a serious business, which strictly followed the rules of journalism, has become a commercial product, being "sold" by attractive faces who have no idea what journalism is. As long as they have high "Q scores" (look it up), their IQ scores no longer matter.

This is a film that every young student, and everyone who watches TV news shows for that matter, should see if they are to understand what has happened to broadcast journalism. Behind the romance and the comedy is a very serious, and tragic, message.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mrbluto-2 13 years ago

My father was in news and most of them are very self absorbed. Great movie.

reply

[–] coffeepartynation 13 years ago

Personally I feel this is one of the best films regarding interpersonal relationships. To those who've oversimplified the film by calling it a "romantic comedy" & were upset Jane didn't pick Aaron or Tom - I offer you this opinion. Jane didn't choose either one because she ended up choosing her one true love...and that was the news.

reply

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

This looked like a more truthful film about tv news personalities!

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]